5 first-quarter fundraising takeaways

The 2014 elections are shaping up to be the most expensive midterm contests ever.

And the first big fundraising reporting deadline of the election year offers a window into the financial health and viability of candidates — and outside groups who will play key roles in this year’s contests and beyond.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Establishment Republicans and tea party groups are still feuding about the direction of their party, as Democrats are trying to beat back an onslaught of negative health care ads with big money. Meanwhile, ambitious politicians on both sides of the aisle are quietly preparing for 2016 — building out political operations, hiring consultants and stockpiling cash.

Here are POLITICO’s five takeaways from the first-quarter fundraising numbers:

1.) Karl Rove’s Crossroads is alive and kicking

The super PAC American Crossroads posted a strong number Tuesday — silencing whispers that the network cofounded by GOP operative Karl Rove had become passé in Republican circles.

American Crossroads raised nearly $5.4 million in the first quarter of 2014 — with the overwhelming majority of that cash coming in March. A spokesperson declined to release the numbers raised by the affiliated nonprofit Crossroads GPS. The super PAC Conservative Victory Project — a PAC designed to back the most electable Republican candidates — remains largely dormant.

The Crossroads network, composed of two super PACs and a nonprofit, had a sleepy 2013 for a group that raised and spent more than $300 million during the last presidential cycle. The three groups combined raised just $6.1 million in 2013. And in 2013, Crossroads saw the loss of two of its major financiers: billionaires Harold Simmons and Bob Perry, who both passed away last year. Together, the two donors and their companies gave more than $30 million to American Crossroads in 2012.

2.) 2016ers quietly prepare

Just because they’re not on the ballot this year doesn’t mean they’re not busy.

The candidates who are taking a hard look at the 2016 race are already busy laying the groundwork for a possible presidential run. Those politicians and their supporters are using a variety of committees and vehicles — including nonprofits, leadership PACs, and joint fundraising committees — for the important work of building databases, engaging supporters and establishing a fundraising base.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has also been spending big on travel, communications and fundraising consulting through his leadership PAC, which spent nearly $584,000 in the first three months of the year.

Hillary Clinton supporters, on the other hand, are building a grassroots political apparatus for the former secretary of State through the super PAC Ready for Hillary. That group raised $1.7 million in the first quarter of 2013 — resources that it’s investing in data and list-building for Clinton, should she decide to run.

3.) Vulnerable Senate Democrats are outraised by their challengers

At least two vulnerable Senate Democrats were outpaced by their likely opponents in the first quarter.

Pryor is also burning through cash more quickly than Cotton, spending more than $1 million – almost as much as he raised – in the same time period. Cotton spent about $860,000.

But Pryor still holds the cash-on-hand advantage. He has $4.4 million in the bank, while Cotton has $2.7 million. Recent polls have also shown Pryor with only a slight edge over Cotton.

Alaska Sen. Mark Begich was also outraised by his likely GOP challenger, Dan Sullivan, for the second consecutive quarter. Begich brought in $1.05 million and has $2.8 million in the bank, while Sullivan raised 1.3 million and has just under $2 million on hand, their campaigns announced.

Other red-state Democrats up for reelection — Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.) and Mary Landrieu (La.) – were able to maintain a sizable money advantage over their top challengers.

4.) Democratic donors are plenty engaged in 2014

Democratic mega-donors have stepped up their giving to outside groups involved in House and Senate races, following concerns from within the party that donors might be more excited about supporting a potential Clinton 2016 run rather than focusing on the midterms.

Senate Majority PAC attracted big checks from Obama supporters in the first quarter, bringing in $4 million from Chicago media mogul Fred Eychaner, $250,000 from philanthropist Jon Stryker and $100,000 from author Amy Goldman Fowler. In all, the group raised an impressive $11.1 million in the first quarter.

House Majority PAC also received contributions from major donors, including Eychaner, who pitched in $500,000; Goldman Fowler, who gave $100,00; and hedge fund manager James Simons, who gave $1 million. The super PAC raised $5.3 million in the first quarter.

Meanwhile, Priorities USA, the pro-Obama-turned-pro-Clinton super PAC, is not actively fundraising, bringing in just $4,096. The group originally said it would sit out the 2014 election and focus on raising money for 2016, angering many within the party. But Priorities later backed off, saying they would encourage donors to give to House and Senate races, while also seeking pledges for the 2016 presidential race.

But that number is only scratches the surface. Much of the Republican outside money is being spent through an increasingly sophisticated network of outside groups — almost all of which are made up of 501(c)4 and 501(c)6 organizations. Those groups don’t disclose their donors and aren’t required to reveal how much they’ve spent until months or years after election day.

Nonprofit groups linked to billionaire financiers Charles and David Koch, for example, are hammering vulnerable Democrats across the country on health care. Groups like Freedom Partners and Americans For Prosperity are purchasing millions of dollars in ads and organizing grassroots conservative forces across the country.

On the other hand, the air support and ground game on the Democratic side mostly comes from super PACs and labor groups — with most progressive donors uncomfortable with the role that anonymous money has come to play in the political process.

In short, it’s an illusion that Democrats are winning the money race at this point. The two parties simply spend money — especially outside money — very differently.